Darwin’s Ghosts by Rebecca Stott pushed me to examine the
concepts of evolution, intelligent design and natural selection from many
different perspectives that I had never considered before. Reading and analyzing
this text allowed me to explore the works of several scientific, religious and
crossover figures that I had never even heard of from various corners of the
world. While trying to sort their research initiatives and final messages out,
I came to the two discussion questions I shared during my presentation in class
last week: Has anyone successfully brought the concepts of science and religion
together to explain the origin of species? And, if not, is the quest to do so
still productive? and Is the pursuit of “pure science” inherently atheistic?
And, if not, why have the disciplines of science and religion been feuding for
centuries? I’ll share the conclusions I
came to upon further reflection here.
It seems that for many centuries, marrying the concepts of
science and religion was the goal of philosophers and scientists alike. While
the church may not have directly approved of his work, Reverend Baden Powell
proves in the first chapter of Darwin’s Ghosts that individuals
have been exploring the relationship between the two for years. When Darwin
received the reverend’s critique of the first edition of “On the Origin of
Species by Natural Selection,” he was afraid it would accuse him of being
impious. Counterintuitively, the reverend was writing to criticize Darwin’s
lack of acknowledgements. You see, Powell had been dabbling in scientific
affairs himself. Then there’s Jahiz and De Maillet who wrote works like The
Book of Living Beings and Telliamed which combined religious
texts like the Qu’ran with poetry, philosophy and primitive science to try to
come to understanding of man’s place among creatures. While the work of some
scientists, like Trembley and Leonardo challenged proclamations made by the
church by asserting the existence of transmutation and asking how animals that
could asexually reproduce could possibly have souls, I don’t believe these men
were necessarily trying to lead people away from the church. If we are to
successfully move forward in understanding the patterns of nature, I believe we
must acknowledge everything we have learned from all perspectives and stop
accusing people of heresy in the process. And for the record, no, I don’t
believe anyone has successfully done this yet.
The being said, I don’t think the pursuit of “pure science” should be inherently atheistic.
Scientists like Diderot, Whitehurst and Lamarck were accused of “challenging
natural law” as understood by the church when they should’ve been praised for
it! (although perhaps their later zealous atheist publications were
counterproductive.) As Descartes said, “In order to determine whether we can
know anything with certainty, we first have to doubt everything we know.” If
researchers of all backgrounds adopted this philosophy, perhaps we could come
to some concrete answers. Perhaps, faith leaders could have their beliefs
strengthened if they were backed by evidence in the same way that scientists
vet their research. To stop the feud between science and religion and move
toward the pursuit of “pure knowledge” (which may even be more productive than the
pursuit of “pure science”) I believe that we need to adopt the founding
principle of Erasmus Darwin’s Lunar Society: No question is off limits.
Attempting to share knowledge in the style of Robert Chambers, who published
his magazine, Chamber’s Edinburgh Journal, at a penny a copy because he was
devastated by the relationship between the knowledge gap and the class divide,
is the only way to move forward. Chambers was, of course, accused of starting a
“secular crusade” with this publication, but denied that claim tooth and nail.
His most famous work, Vestiges, was an attempt at
marrying religious and scientific concepts. Its main message was, “…God had
created nature to do the work for him.” In the end each of the disciplines
simply needs to acknowledge the works of the other and recognize that progress
contributes to the fluidity of what we know to be true.
I admire the questions you ask Abi. I have a similar question on the table for tonight. Since I am doing my presentation peripatetically, we can discuss this as we walk around.
ReplyDeleteAbi, your Prezi presentation was terrific! Nicely done.
ReplyDeleteI agree, no scientific inquiry should set out explicitly to be atheistic. But science does need to proceed naturalistically. So, to be open to god from a scientifc point of view means being receptive to evidence... and evidence in the scientific sense must be more than subjective first-person testimony, it must be public and replicable by any rational experiencer. William James was all about the empirical search for such evidence. But he was also a respecter of experience, even when it failed to rise to the standard of scientific evidence. Hence, his "Varieties of Religious Experience." The challenge, then, is to take others' reports of their own religious experience seriously but not conclusively, when sifting all the experience of all the experiencers. I don't know that science and religion need be "married," maybe they can just wink at one another across the ballroom from time to time.